Sunday, 31 August 2008

The Anglo Mangina

What is a Mangina? Across the Anglosphere, everyone is acquainted with these limp excuses for men; in their eyes, women can do no wrong – they consider all women paragons of unassailable virtue, liberation and intellect. Indeed, these spineless pussies are usually more vociferous in their misandry and gynophilia than Anglo feminists.

Given their prominence in Anglo-American feminism, and their implacable resistance to our pan-Anglosphere resistance movement, the Anglo Mangina merits some analysis.

Far from being some kind of some enlightened, sympathetic modern figure, the Mangina is in fact a deeply conservative representative of traditional Anglo-Saxon attitudes. Unfortunately, this tradition is puritanical; consequently, the Anglo Mangina presents his absurd feminist opinions as some kind of 'revolutionary' agenda, when they are in fact the apotheosis of Anglo Tradition (as such). For his whole ‘women on pedestals’ agenda is Anglo to its backbone; and hearkens back centuries, to the puritan revolution of the late Seventeenth Century. Now, since Puritanism is at core an aversion to sensual pleasure, it gives women the tacit belief that, as ‘owners’ of sex in a repressive social context, they are entitled to ‘privileged’ treatment. This, of course, is why Anglo women are so singularly aloof, arrogant, and entitled; and why they seek to augment their new-found rights with traditional Anglo privileges (typically with great success).

Hence, by setting women atop Pedestals of Entitlement, the Anglo Mangina is in fact merely reinforcing the existing social order and its hegemonic assumptions, not coherently challenging them. Of course, masculinity is in short supply across the Anglosphere; the distinctive matriarchal nature of the Anglo-American hegemonic infrastructure ensures this, since males must defer to women in order to gain reproductive access. The Anglo Mangina closely conforms to this desultory archetype, debasing his male identity for the stilted promise of sexual favours. Again, the arrant hypocrisy of his position is paramount; for women have retained their pre-feminist sexual conservatism to manoeuvre our Mangina thus, confounding his principle assumption that feminism ‘changed’ them in some way.

I n all respects, then, our Anglo Mangina is an absurd anachronism; he is a faux revolutionary wholly entrapped in what he claims to oppose.


  1. Good day, Muzalon:

    Unfortunately, I am not able to answer any of your questions on because the appropriately named Dick Masterson has decided to permanently suspend my posting privileges. Therefore, I will no longer be posting messages on his website because of his disgust with my extreme radicalism and my violent, murderous hatred of the female species.

    In answer to your question: because of my work at the office and the voraciousness of my appetite for study, I have only managed to acquire a passing familiarity with the writings of both René Guénon and Julius Evola; however, I particularly admire Guénon’s Crisis of the Modern World and Evola’s Revolt Against the Modern World very much. In their analysis of Western cultural decline, they both seem to have been heavily influenced by a synthesis of Eastern spirituality, especially Hinduism because of the Indo-European origins of Western myth and tradition, and the logic of modern scientific methodology. Both Guénon and Evola seem to possess world views that are permeated by a quintessentially pessimistic belief, derived from Spengler no doubt, that civilizational growth is cyclical in nature, with particular focus upon the gradual extinction of Western culture. However, neither believes that the guiding animus of modern civilization has always been progress, industrial or otherwise; through the instrumentality of Western scientific rationalism and the gradual substitution of the sacred for the profane, the current state of modern civilization has undergone a series of “progressive materializations” that have radically transformed it, almost beyond recognition, into a social chaos that has gravitated away from the purity of the internal dialectic upon which it was initially moulded. However, with the exception of much of the classical metaphysics upon which many of their ideas are couched, I strongly agree with many of their conclusions concerning the reasons behind the collapse of the West and the emergence of a new Dark Age. Such reasons include: the abandonment of tradition, the subordination of contemplation to action, rampant individualism and materialism, and the spread of modern democracy. Additionally, I find Guénon’s discussion of the gradual dissemination of a traditionalist doctrine after the dissolution of the current world order and Evola’s belief in the complete debasement and subordination of women to men and his effusive praise of the Hindu practice of suttee to be quite inspirational, to say the least.

    On to other matters...

    Science really does uphold the conventional wisdom that women either love violent criminals and dangerous psychopaths, or men with large amounts of cash to spend. I fired off this personal communiqué to Steven Pinker of Harvard and to my personal friend, David C. Geary of the University of Missouri:

    I have some questions to ask you that have perplexed me for some time. Many people seem to think that besides financially well-off men, women are deeply attracted to both thugs and gangsters. It seems that the conventional wisdom is that women are attracted to "assholes", but despise so-called "nice guys". Why is it that women seem to be so attracted to aggressive bullies, violent criminals, dangerous psychopaths, mass murderers, and drug-crazed gang-bangers? The fact that women are attracted to violent criminals and dangerous psychopaths is a fact that cannot be denied. As a matter of fact, some of the world's most dangerous criminals, such as Al Capone, Pablo Escobar or Ted Bundy, always seemed to attract the most beautiful women. Even some of the biggest, most violent and bloodthirsty gangs in the contemporary world, such as La Mara Salvatrucha in El Salvador or the L.A.-based Bloods in the U.S., seem to attract hordes of female admirers known as "honey traps". Many mass murderers sitting in jail cells all around the world are constantly inundated with letters from women declaring love at first sight and proposing marriage. Even if these thugs and gangsters have nothing else to offer, especially in terms of money or other resources, many women still seem drawn to these men like flies on garbage. If women are supposedly attracted to men of the highest genetic quality, then why are so many women attracted to men of obviously low genetic quality like dangerous criminals and violent psychopaths?

    It seems that women are not designed to select men on the basis of any kind of genetic superiority whatsoever, but to evaluate a man solely on his ability to provide or his abiltiy to protect due to the phenomenon of greater female parental investment. Or is it the other way around? Is it possible that women are designed to select men on the basis of genetic fitness, but whether they do so effectively or not is an entirely different matter altogether? Is there a possible sociobiological explanation that can account for why so many women find violent criminals attractive? Are women attracted to such men because they crave a level of excitement that a nice guy cannot provide them with? Does female sexual interest in violent male aggression reflect a primitive attraction to physical strength and high levels of testosterone, factors that were key to successfully raising children within an ancestral environment? Is it possible that much of the birth rate amongst the lower classes is due to the fact that women are attracted to dangerous men? Given the propensity that women have for being attracted to dangerous men, is it possible that such men are more fertile than men who are economically well-off? It seems that violent criminals have more success with women than either men who are financially well-off or relatively impoverished. I have heard it said that female reproductive choice often leads to dysgenic effects (negative genetic consequences) as far as the population is concerned. Is the dramatic increase in single-parent families a reflection of the dysgenic nature of female reproductive choice? Are rates of domestic violence and marital rape a consequence of the female attraction to dangerous, violent men?

    You might find their responses of interest, Muzalon.

    Mr. Pinker responded by saying that:

    I’m not an expert in the phenomena, but here are some relevant considerations. From an evolutionary perspective, female mate choice should be affected both by a desire for good genes (where “good” means “likely to reproduce”) as well as paternal investment in the woman’s children. These need not coincide; hence some women have affairs with the strongest, smartest, best-looking man available, while being married to the nicest and most reliable man available. There is some evidence that women are more attracted to hypermasculine men when they are ovulating (when good genes are paramount) and to nice guys when they are not. There is also evidence that less desirable women are less choosy in terms of the willingness and ability of a man to provide for her and her children, and hence at least in relative terms more attracted to dashing qualities than to stable ones. Note too that the most desirable man of all, in many woman’s eyes, is “tough-tender” – nice to her, aggressive with everyone else.

    Toughness can be attractive for several reasons. One is that it can reflect overall genetic quality – health, smarts, strength (this would be especially true in ancestral contexts where the land and money and power went to the best warrior, not to the smartest lawyer). Another is that it can protect the woman and her children against rapists, abductors, and so on. Probably most relevant is that he promises to give her tough sons. A woman’s son has to compete against other women’s sons, and if he is beaten up or publicly humiliated or cuckolded or killed, he will have less of a chance to reproduce. Of course all these have to be traded off against how good he is to her and her kids, but as mentioned, I predict that most women would prefer tough-to-others-nice-to-her than tough-to-everyone, though some may have to settle for the latter as a second choice.

    Professor Geary said:

    Yes, you are correct, there is the asshole effect. It is an indicator of arrogance and social dominance, at least in the male’s mind, and women respond to this. They do so, in my opinion, because these were associated with status or potential to achieve status in traditional societies. These days, the correlation between cultural success and narcissism and arrogance (assholes) is small, though slightly positive. Some assholes are successful, but many just think they are. Some successful men are nice guys and more mature women will find their success attractive, though many won’t absence the aura of dominance. I’ve attached a couple of draft chapters from the 2nd ed of Male, Female that might be of interest.

    In an excerpt from the rough draft of the book, the professor writes:

    A preference for a culturally successful marriage partner is not enough, in and of itself, to constitute a successful reproductive strategy for women. Culturally successful men are often arrogant, self-serving, and are better able to pursue their preferred reproductive interests than are other men. As described in Men’s Mate Choices, these preferences often involve pursuing multiple mating partners rather than investing in a single woman and her children (Betzig, 1986; D. M. Buss, 2003; Pérusse, 1993). When situated in a wealthy country with large numbers of men who make a sufficient income, women do not have to tolerate the competing interests of the most culturally-successful men; Eagly’s and Wood’s (1999) findings suggest just this.

    Women only love violent criminals and other kinds of assholes. Enough said.

    Take care, old friend.

  2. What a magnificent post... you certainly bat with some big players.

    One reason women may shun males of high IQ is that IQ does not pass down the male line and is thus fairly irrelevant as a genetic trait in the male. There is a long-standing folk tradition that intellect (and the central nervous system in general) is inherited from the mother, not the father. Hence women look for traits that the male can pass on, rather than traits that he can't.

    It is certainly interesting that ethnic types renowned for intellectual prowess - Ashkenazi Jews, for instance, or Ba'Hais - seem to prefer a matriarchal line of descent to determine their ethnic status.

  3. ^^ That's hugely interesting Rookh.

  4. MANGINA - combination of "man" and "vagina" - a male-bashing term made by anti-male-bashers???

    No matter how you look at it, this is a MALE-BASHING term. Hence, it is contradictory to itself. It was made to desribe MEN that are basically against MEN. Yet the term itself is against MEN.

    Once those who are not intellectually elite get a hold of it, its meaning will be skewed.

    I envision a bunch of drunken frat-idiots using this term to describe:
    A young man who has no interest in dirtying his penis by f*cking every anglobitch that he sees.
    A man that does not go to strip clubs with his peers, and waste his money on tramps
    A man that does not engage in whatever current behavior is seen by his drunken peers as being "manly"


    Use more concrete and traditional terms like: sellout, traitor, misandrist etc...

  5. Keep doing what you're doing. This article is a credit to men in the Anglosphere. It seems like you're message on manginas is catching on:

  6. I cannot understand these creatures. Even in my most blue pill days, I would never put down men or take a woman's side if she was clearly in the wrong. I cannot comprehend how anyone can be so brainwashed.